I'm not sure why you're trying to redefine a word. Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. That's the word. Killshot summed it up best in the second post of this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by killshot

Atheism is not a religion. In fact, that's all it is. A lack of religion. That's the definition no matter how you look at it. There are some philosophies that are often associated with atheism such as skepticism, existentialism, and sometimes nihilism, but all that is required to be an atheist is the lack of belief in gods.

To paraphrase Bill Maher, atheism is to religion as abstinence is to sex.

As he said. Trying to classify atheism as a religion is like trying to classify abstinence as a form of sexual activity. It is not. It is the lack of sexual activity.

Alright, seeing as that's the exact argument that I have been refuting this entire time, I see no good reason to repeat myself once more. xD

Instead, I'll try to just put what I've said in even simpler terms.

1. A religion is something you believe in. If you are an atheist, you believe in atheism. Being an atheist, you don't believe in Christianity, Buddhism, ect.

2. Atheism, also known as Secular Humanism, is all based on the individual.
This means that you and only you are the one who decides what is right or wrong. Your ideals are your truths. You have the right to do whatever you think is right.
Nobody else can tell you what is right or wrong. Your instincts tell you what is right or wrong.
That other guy's instincts tell him what is right or wrong for him. Truth is relative.
Your moral comes from your and only your instincts.
If someone has a bad moral, it is because he or she has been badly influenced by his or her environment, and any wrong acts are not the individual's fault. "A person raised to be a thief will steal. A person raised to fight may kill."
In atheism, you are the only being in the world that you answer to. By bettering your self, you become greater in mind and social status in the world.

3. In Christian or New Age terms, this is the equivalent to regarding oneself as ones only "god" figure. This doesn't mean you go around "praying" to yourself, or saying that you're God. That, in action, would be more New Age than Secular Humanism.

4. But because you choose to reject anything that society calls "god", you are accepting no other being as higher in importance than yourself.

5. Anyway, atheism has already been declared a religion by the Supreme Court and by several major atheistic leaders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zairak

As an aside, it is incredibly offensive for you to imply that atheists think of themselves as gods. It is not a belief. It is an organized movement in the same way that religious zealots have an organized movement: That is, people trying to use a concept to force their view on the world. It is not appropriate to generalize the way you are.

I did not realize that you were reading "god" as something completely different than I was. For that, I apologize. See 3., and 2. as well.

6. "atheism is to religion as abstinence is to sex." makes hardly an iota of logical sense. Atheism is to religion as a giraffe is to animal. This quote is trying very hard to make it seem like atheism is the lack of a belief. That is more like agnosticism. I have already said this before: Everyone has a religion, whether that religion is based on the belief in a super natural, powerful being called "God", or based on the rejection of any thing called "god", or based on the refusal to acknowledge any known religion due to lack of proof of a god, the Force, or the lack of an Intelligent Designer of the world.

7. Although they are given different definitions, the terms "Religion" and "Worldview" are nearly the same thing. Your worldview is the foundation of your beliefs about the world, and not just the world, philosophy and ethics as well. Religion is basically putting a label on a commonly shared worldview. Atheists call their worldview "Atheism" or "Secular Humanism". Christians call their worldview, which is based upon Christ's Salvation for a fallen world and society, "Christianity".

8. Every religion, worldview, belief, or whatever you wish to call it, has an opinion on the origin of the world, and the purpose for mankind. Atheism is not excluded from this fact.

9. Lastly, the number analogy actually supports my theory xD Zero is not the lack of a number; it is a digit and another integer just like all the others on a number line or graph. But what it represents is the lack of whatever the numbers are counting! c:

Last edited by ShizukaMikudou; 03-13-2013 at 04:41 PM.
Reason: Addition and Spellcheck.

This entire board is for Serious Discussions and is meant for mature debating. I'm not trying to do anything but clear up misunderstandings and provide my opinion, as was the intent of this thread. If you have something important to say, then go right ahead.
I have every right to give my opinion as do all of you guys here. ^_^
Besides, as I argue against the definitions that a dictionary may give that I believe are incorrect, aren't many people here trying to argue against society's belief and moral that homosexuality is unnatural? This thread is for opinions, whether they be in agreement with or against someone else's opinion.

Last edited by ShizukaMikudou; 03-13-2013 at 04:51 PM.
Reason: Spellcheck.

I would guess that Killshot is trying to make the point that you are not forming a debate in the sense of forming a logical train of points which prove or disprove a certain point, instead you are changing the very definitions or (more aptly) the descriptions of the concepts under debate to prove your point.

That is like saying "I can shoot myself in the head without dying", and then using your hand as the gun by which you shoot yourself. Your hand is not a gun, and just because you say it is, does not make it so. This means just saying your hand is a gun to prove you can shoot yourself in the head without dying does not prove you can shoot yourself in the head without dying, nor does it mean your hand is actually a gun.

You cannot just change the very premise of the debate or the concepts within it, if you wish to be taken seriously as a debater. (I do realise that things like religion have soft definitions, but that does not mean that you can just ignore their definitions altogether, otherwise they, both as words and concepts, are devoid of all meaning.)

This entire board is for Serious Discussions and is meant for mature debating. I'm not trying to do anything but clear up misunderstandings and provide my opinion, as was the intent of this thread. If you have something important to say, then go right ahead.
I have every right to give my opinion as do all of you guys here. ^_^
Besides, as I argue against the definitions that a dictionary may give that I believe are incorrect, aren't many people here trying to argue against society's belief and moral that homosexuality is unnatural? This thread is for opinions, whether they be in agreement with or against someone else's opinion.

You are not volunteering an opinion, you are trying to change what words mean. Unless you can use the language that everyone has agreed upon, there is nothing to discuss.

I'm not trying to change a definition of a term like as if I were trying to defy a natural law. I'm arguing against a theory, not a law, if that makes more sense.

It is not a natural law that the term "dog" means the canine. In fact, definitions of words are changing all the time. For example, calling a Joey a "dog" has an entirely different meaning amongst YGOTAS fans than as if you were calling a horse a marsupial. c:

So no, I am not changing any definitions here, only trying to explain my opinions. By giving words better definitions, in my opinion, I am changing the way my words are read. Actually, since word definitions are coming to be such a pointless argument, here's what: I take the word "religion" out of this entire conversation, but the meaning remains the same - that Buddhism and Atheism are to their category as Cats and Dogs are to the Mammal category.

Last edited by ShizukaMikudou; 03-13-2013 at 05:18 PM.
Reason: Spellcheck.

No offense, but this sentence by everyone's (expect possibly your's) understanding of the English language means you are changing their definitions. By giving them new meanings you are altering them, to atler them is to change them, thus you are changing them. You cannot do that, I am not sorry to tell you.

You claim words change everyday, you are correct, but they change naturally over time. People do not consciously just wake up and say, 'awesome' now is a positive word for something amazing. It is a natural and unconscious evolution of language and your forced attempts at a revolution in our language do make you right by their innate virtues.

In fact, I do not wish to speak out of turn, but it is quite arrogant of you believe you can say black now means white because that better suits your personal view of the world, that, by definition, means you are just wrong.

Lets look at it another way, a man suffers massive head injures in a very bad car accident, this causes him both physical and by result, mental health issues. He now, due to these injures is delusional and sees/hears thing which do not exist. These delusions cause him to become convinced that that he is infact god. He writes his own religious book, sets out religious rules, holds religious festivals, had set religious practices. Does that mean he has made a religion? The answer is no, but I will leave you to work out why for yourself because in doing so, you will both work out why you are wrong that to just presume you can change the meanings of words, and wrong on the count of assuming that you can make atheism a religion without paying heed what both atheism and religion are as words and concepts.

[*]1. A religion is something you believe in. If you are an atheist, you believe in atheism. Being an atheist, you don't believe in Christianity, Buddhism, ect.

By that logic birth control is a religion. Religion implies the worship of something, and I sure as hell dont worship condoms.

Quote:

[*]2. Atheism, also known as Secular Humanism, is all based on the individual.
This means that you and only you are the one who decides what is right or wrong. Your ideals are your truths. You have the right to do whatever you think is right.
Nobody else can tell you what is right or wrong. Your instincts tell you what is right or wrong.
That other guy's instincts tell him what is right or wrong for him. Truth is relative.
Your moral comes from your and only your instincts.
If someone has a bad moral, it is because he or she has been badly influenced by his or her environment, and any wrong acts are not the individual's fault. "A person raised to be a thief will steal. A person raised to fight may kill."
In atheism, you are the only being in the world that you answer to. By bettering your self, you become greater in mind and social status in the world.

Incorrect. May I state that communism is extremely anti-religion in many of its forms. Ignoring "real" communism (aka the fascist regimes which took place in Russia, Cuba, China, etc), most of these are about the collective.

MORAL truth is relative, yes. But again you are redifining instincts. Humans typically share similar reflexive instincts, and if this is the case, there is ultimately some truth in action outside of moral, which forms from cultural and social norms. The extent however depends on your view of huma nature, which varies fro ideology to ideology.

However, some aspects can be seen throughout humanity: most notably unless you are outright rejected already or have mental psychosis, you will not harm another member of your community without due reason. Likewise, we are a social species, which struggle to live a completely isolated life, and thereby we are a collective species. what makes us individualistic is, interestingly nough, social and cultural virtues.

Therefore, only some human truth is moral truth, and being an Atheist does not mean you are an individualist.

Quote:

[*]4. But because you choose to reject anything that society calls "god", you are accepting no other being as higher in importance than yourself.

Define importance, because in todays society we do accept authority, and authority implies importance. You could mean we put ourselves in priority, but is that always the case? Some people are willing to sacrifice their own pleasures or even their own lives to protect the ones they care about, therefore you do percieve some beings as higher than yourself, but that does not make them "Gods".

Quote:

[*]5. Anyway, atheism has already been declared a religion by the Supreme Court and by several major atheistic leaders.

Could you source this? As far as I would gather they would be provided the same rights as a religious group.

In terms of defining religion, I will say no more. The argument is for the most part inconsequencial.

Alright, on the off change you aren't a troll, I'm willing to give you a real response. People calling atheism a religion is sort of a pet peeve of mine since it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject. Now that my knee jerk reaction is over, I'll reply to what you actually said.

Quote:

1. A religion is something you believe in. If you are an atheist, you believe in atheism. Being an atheist, you don't believe in Christianity, Buddhism, ect.

Belief in something does not qualify that something as a religion. I "believe" in gravity, yet gravity is not a religion. Religion has several historical and cultural implications that are not applicable to atheism.

Quote:

2. Atheism, also known as Secular Humanism, is all based on the individual.
This means that you and only you are the one who decides what is right or wrong.
Your ideals are your truths.
You have the right to do whatever you think is right.
Nobody else can tell you what is right or wrong.
Your instincts tell you what is right or wrong.
That other guy's instincts tell him what is right or wrong for him.
Truth is relative.
Your moral comes from your and only your instincts.
If someone has a bad moral, it is because he or she has been badly influenced by his or her environment, and any wrong acts are not the individual's fault. "A person raised to be a thief will steal. A person raised to fight may kill."
In atheism, you are the only being in the world that you answer to. By bettering your self, you become greater in mind and social status in the world.

Atheism is not also known as secular humanism. The two ideas have much in common and many atheists are often secular humanists, but the terms are not interchangeable. You bring up several ideas in the remainder of this section that would require much more than an offhand response so I won't touch on them for now.

Quote:

3. In Christian or New Age terms, this is the equivalent to regarding oneself as ones only "god" figure. This doesn't mean you go around "praying" to yourself, or saying that you're God. That, in action, would be more New Age than Secular Humanism.

I don't understand what you are saying here. Why would Christian terms be any different than other terms?

Quote:

4. But because you choose to reject anything that society calls "god", you are accepting no other being as higher in importance than yourself.

This is a massive leap of logic. As a christian, do you believe yourself to be the next best thing to god? Why would an atheist automatically have to become a narcissist and value themselves over all others? Are you saying there are no self-sacrificing atheists?

Quote:

5. Anyway, atheism has already been declared a religion by the Supreme Court and by several major atheistic leaders.

Citation needed. And who are these atheistic leaders? Didn't you just say that atheists only believe in themselves? I don't follow your logic.

Quote:

6. "atheism is to religion as abstinence is to sex." makes hardly an iota of logical sense. Atheism is to religion as a giraffe is to animal. This quote is trying very hard to make it seem like atheism is the lack of a belief. That is more like agnosticism. I have already said this before: Everyone has a religion, whether that religion is based on the belief in a super natural, powerful being called "God", or based on the rejection of any thing called "god", or based on the refusal to acknowledge any known religion due to lack of proof of a god, the Force, or the lack of an Intelligent Designer of the world.

It makes perfect sense. Although the quote I used was intended to entertain as well as inform, it doesn't make it any less applicable. The quote tries to convey atheism as a lack of belief because that is exactly what atheism is. Saying anything to the contrary is just plain incorrect. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is unknowable. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms. For example, I am an agnostic atheist, meaning that while I do not believe in a god, I also concede that it is impossible to prove or disprove his existence.

Everyone does not have a religion. This is just silly.

Quote:

7. Although they are given different definitions, the terms "Religion" and "Worldview" are nearly the same thing. Your worldview is the foundation of your beliefs about the world, and not just the world, philosophy and ethics as well. Religion is basically putting a label on a commonly shared worldview. Atheists call their worldview "Atheism" or "Secular Humanism". Christians call their worldview, which is based upon Christ's Salvation for a fallen world and society, "Christianity".

They have different definitions for a reason. They are most certainly not the same thing. There is nothing to discuss here, you are simply incorrect.

Quote:

8. Every religion, worldview, belief, or whatever you wish to call it, has an opinion on the origin of the world, and the purpose for mankind. Atheism is not excluded from this fact.

Again, some basic fact checking would tell you this is wrong. Many belief systems make no attempt at explaining the origins of the world, let alone the purpose of life. Is is incorrect.

Quote:

9. Lastly, the number analogy actually supports my theory xD Zero is not the lack of a number; it is a digit and another integer just like all the others on a number line or graph. But what it represents is the lack of whatever the numbers are counting! c:

Yes, zero is a number, but that has no relation to the topic being discussed.

I'm still not convinced you aren't a troll, but since you are willing to show some common curtsey I will give you the benefit of the doubt. In the future, please stop centering your posts. It looks strange and makes them more difficult to read.

It is not a natural law that the term "dog" means the canine. In fact, definitions of words are changing all the time. For example, calling a Joey a "dog" has an entirely different meaning amongst YGOTAS fans than as if you were calling a horse a marsupial. c:

No, I am not changing a definition, and by "giving it a better definition", I meant temporarily, obviously. Metaphorically, skeptically. Not literally.

Not only do words change all the time, but several words have multiple meanings. If, for example, looking at it in another way, a man giving a speech starts off saying that when he mentions "lions", he is referring to the military and calling it powerful, then in the duration of his speech, "lions" means powerful military, not actual lions.

Bringing that analogy here, the audience is telling him he is wrong because lions don't fight in the war. He is not changing a definition, only giving it a different definition for the situation. It does not change the law that the accepted definition of a lion is "A large feline predator, usually living in Africa, where the males grow manes." But even so, maybe some time afterwards, people begin to actually call the military, "lions". That doesn't mean that the man who gave the speech really was claiming that lions fought in the military, nor that the military turned into lions.

No, I am not changing a definition, and by "giving it a better definition", I meant temporarily, obviously. Metaphorically, skeptically. Not literally.

Not only do words change all the time, but several words have multiple meanings. If, for example, looking at it in another way, a man giving a speech starts off saying that when he mentions "lions", he is referring to the military and calling it powerful, then in the duration of his speech, "lions" means powerful military, not actual lions.

Bringing that analogy here, the audience is telling him he is wrong because lions don't fight in the war. He is not changing a definition, only giving it a different definition for the situation. It does not change the law that the accepted definition of a lion is "A large feline predator, usually living in Africa, where the males grow manes." But even so, maybe some time afterwards, people begin to actually call the military, "lions". That doesn't mean that the man who gave the speech really was claiming that lions fought in the military, nor that the military turned into lions.

Using a metaphor does not equate to changing a definition. This is ridiculous.

But the main argument going on here is about the definition. By changing or manipulating the definition you are manipulating your argument, which shall not function in any debate except those who are easilly swade by such.. Also, comparing to lions is a metaphor, and a culturally relatable one which has been given relevent meaning in society.

No, I am not changing a definition, and by "giving it a better definition", I meant temporarily, obviously. Metaphorically, skeptically. Not literally.

As I said, by the understanding of everyone, bar you, you are changing them. Why? Because:
1=To change something is to make it different to what it was previously.
2=To be different is to be 'not the same.'
3=Your definition is not the same as the previous definition of the word.
4=Thus your definition is different.
5=Therefore you have changed their meanings, or at least unsuccessfully tried to.

=As for your use of the words, "temporarily, obviously. Metaphorically, skeptically." Well, unfortunately, your usage of them makes no sense to anyone bar, presumably, yourself. Why? Because:
1= Temporarily changing something means you make it different for a short period of time. That means you have just said you are giving them new definitions for a short period of time, then changing them back. I am not sure how this proves your point.
2=Using words metaphorically is not changing, it means you are using their meaning a non-literal sense; however, this does not your help because that is not what you are doing. You are using your own, new, definitions of the words in a very literal sense.
3=To be skeptical is to be mildly disbelieving of something. Now your use of the word means you just stated that you are skeptical of your own theory. This is because currently the words position in the sentence means the only dominant clause it can be linked with is your own theory, thus you just said you are skeptical of your own theory. Now, may be you are, I do not know, your constantly changing of the English language makes you hard to follow, but I do think that is what you actually meant to do. Thus, the word here, I am sorry to inform you, is not being used correctly for your purposes.

Quote:

Not only do words change all the time, but several words have multiple meanings. If, for example, looking at it in another way, a man giving a speech starts off saying that when he mentions "lions", he is referring to the military and calling it powerful, then in the duration of his speech, "lions" means powerful military, not actual lions.

That is not changing the meaning of a word, that is the correct way to metaphorically use a word. Lions are perceived to be brave and strong, thus the word 'lion' is associated with these characteristics. That means when he uses the word 'lion' to refer to the group in question, he is not changing the meaning, he is merely using it as dramatic substitute for words which are already associated with the word 'lions' original meaning.

Quote:

Bringing that analogy here, the audience is telling him he is wrong because lions don't fight in the war. He is not changing a definition, only giving it a different definition for the situation. It does not change the law that the accepted definition of a lion is "A large feline predator, usually living in Africa, where the males grow manes." But even so, maybe some time afterwards, people begin to actually call the military, "lions". That doesn't mean that the man who gave the speech really was claiming that lions fought in the military, nor that the military turned into lions.

As I said, he is not changing it, he is merely using it metaphorically to express characteristics already associated with the word. That is quite distinct to what you are doing.

As I said, work out why the man has not yet made a religion and you will find your answer as to why you are seen by all, but yourself, as wrong.

By that logic birth control is a religion. Religion implies the worship of something, and I sure as hell dont worship condoms.

Again, the wrong meaning of "belief" is being read here. I believe that if I sit in my chair, the chair will hold me. I have faith that sitting in the chair is what it is meant for. That does not mean I believe in a "Chair" religion, based on the fact that chairs do in fact work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grimfang999

Incorrect. May I state that communism is extremely anti-religion in many of its forms. Ignoring "real" communism (aka the fascist regimes which took place in Russia, Cuba, China, etc), most of these are about the collective.

I never mentioned Communism, did I? Communism is all focused on the government and society as a whole. Although Marxism-Leninism and Secular Humanism have similar beliefs in that there is no such god, they are very different in their beliefs about ethical philosophy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grimfang999

MORAL truth is relative, yes. But again you are redifining instincts. Humans typically share similar reflexive instincts, and if this is the case, there is ultimately some truth in action outside of moral, which forms from cultural and social norms. The extent however depends on your view of huma nature, which varies fro ideology to ideology.

However, some aspects can be seen throughout humanity: most notably unless you are outright rejected already or have mental psychosis, you will not harm another member of your community without due reason. Likewise, we are a social species, which struggle to live a completely isolated life, and thereby we are a collective species. what makes us individualistic is, interestingly nough, social and cultural virtues.

Therefore, only some human truth is moral truth, and being an Atheist does not mean you are an individualist.

Exactly, the extent depends on your view of human nature, which is one of the factors that make your worldview. Now, the real discussion here on this very topic is where that truth is coming from. Why is it that killing innocent people is wrong? Could the same definitions be set if the world were different, and killing was as natural as breathing? These natural morals, instincts, and truths are coincidentally similar in many cases. Worldviews often collide over the existence or origin of these natural morals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grimfang999

Define importance, because in todays society we do accept authority, and authority implies importance. You could mean we put ourselves in priority, but is that always the case? Some people are willing to sacrifice their own pleasures or even their own lives to protect the ones they care about, therefore you do percieve some beings as higher than yourself, but that does not make them "Gods".

The focus of the meaning is in why. Why does a person risk his life for another? Because he believes that it is the right thing to do. Why do people give money to help the poor? Because they believe it is the right thing to do. Focus on the subject pronoun in these sentences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grimfang999

Could you source this? As far as I would gather they would be provided the same rights as a religious group.

Alright, on the off change you aren't a troll, I'm willing to give you a real response. People calling atheism a religion is sort of a pet peeve of mine since it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject. Now that my knee jerk reaction is over, I'll reply to what you actually said.

First of all, what have I done to make myself a troll? The thread called for a discussion, and I contributed. If simply giving my opinion, which doesn't happen to agree with many of the atheistic opinions here, is trolling, then the thread starter should have said so in the first place that this thread was only for atheists to come and agree on their beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by killshot

Belief in something does not qualify that something as a religion. I "believe" in gravity, yet gravity is not a religion. Religion has several historical and cultural implications that are not applicable to atheism.

Here, I quote myself from this same post, but in answer to Grim's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShizukaMikudou

Again, the wrong meaning of "belief" is being read here. I believe that if I sit in my chair, the chair will hold me. I have faith that sitting in the chair is what it is meant for. That does not mean I believe in a "Chair" religion, based on the fact that chairs do in fact work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by killshot

Atheism is not also known as secular humanism. The two ideas have much in common and many atheists are often secular humanists, but the terms are not interchangeable. You bring up several ideas in the remainder of this section that would require much more than an offhand response so I won't touch on them for now.

I don't understand what you are saying here. Why would Christian terms be any different than other terms?

Because obviously, the term, "God" is being severely misinterpreted.
If you mention "God" to a Christian, the Christian takes the meaning of "The One and only God, creator of the universe."
If you say "god" to a Christian, the word means "A role model, idol, or being of moral importance."
For example, it is like when a fangirl says "Justin Beiber is my idol! If he told me to take of my clothes, I would do it. If he told me to go sky-diving with him, I would do it. If he told me to Never say Never, I would post it around the internet and turn it into a moral." And no, I am not a fan of the guy either, before even something as obviously sarcastic as this gets taken seriously.
Now, if you say "god" to an atheist, the meaning is the same whether or not you capitalize the letter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by killshot

This is a massive leap of logic. As a christian, do you believe yourself to be the next best thing to god? Why would an atheist automatically have to become a narcissist and value themselves over all others? Are you saying there are no self-sacrificing atheists?

Everything I have said up 'til now answers these questions.
As for your first question, no, I don't. As a Christian, I realize that humans are extremely sinful beings, and heck, if I were in God's place, I would love to burn this world and try again with a new one. Compared to God, well, there is no comparison. God is a brand new, eternally clean diamond, and humans are a very, very moldy piece of poop. And that is a severe understatement.
The human spirit is conceited, and doesn't want to accept a being higher than oneself, for if there is a God, then that means we all are expected to do good works, or else we'll go to Hell. As a Christian, though, I can accept this, and yes, it is a humbling thing for everyone and anyone to admit that they are wrong, but through admitting your sins, and accepting God's forgiveness, God has said many times that He will forget your sins completely.

As for the other questions, I'll quote myself:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShizukaMikudou

The focus of the meaning is in why. Why does a person risk his life for another? Because he believes that it is the right thing to do. Why do people give money to help the poor? Because they believe it is the right thing to do. Focus on the subject pronoun in these sentences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by killshot

Citation needed. And who are these atheistic leaders? Didn't you just say that atheists only believe in themselves? I don't follow your logic.

Atheistic leaders - leaders, as in, referring to a few of the strongest, most outspoken athiests. See above for previous references to the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by killshot

It makes perfect sense. Although the quote I used was intended to entertain as well as inform, it doesn't make it any less applicable. The quote tries to convey atheism as a lack of belief because that is exactly what atheism is. Saying anything to the contrary is just plain incorrect. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is unknowable. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms. For example, I am an agnostic atheist, meaning that while I do not believe in a god, I also concede that it is impossible to prove or disprove his existence.

Everyone does not have a religion. This is just silly.

You keep saying "is" and "is incorrect", while giving examples. Do you have any reason why or how or what makes the quote truth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by killshot

They have different definitions for a reason. They are most certainly not the same thing. There is nothing to discuss here, you are simply incorrect.

Again, how are they not the same thing? Throwing out statements without some backup isn't defeating my argument. xD I defined them both, explained them, then explained them further to aid my argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by killshot

Again, some basic fact checking would tell you this is wrong. Many belief systems make no attempt at explaining the origins of the world, let alone the purpose of life. Is is incorrect.

Well, with that, you've declared several worldviews, including atheism, completely without foundation.
Every belief system has an opinion. Christianity believes that God, the first and eternal cause existing outside of time and space, created the world.
Atheism believes that either the world's beginning was an accident, or that the world has always existed. Buddhism, Shintoism, and all the other religions also have their stories on the world's origin.
The same goes for mankind's purpose. Christianity believes that we are to be witnesses of Christ to everyone else, and that we will be saved by Jesus Christ from our fate in Hell.
Atheism believes that we have no purpose other than personal pursuit of happiness.
Buddhism believes that humans need to achieve Enlightenment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by killshot

Yes, zero is a number, but that has no relation to the topic being discussed.

Yup, it doesn't, but that simply means that the number zero analogy didn't support atheism's status as an anti-religion. xD

Quote:

Originally Posted by killshot

I'm still not convinced you aren't a troll, but since you are willing to show some common curtsey I will give you the benefit of the doubt. In the future, please stop centering your posts. It looks strange and makes them more difficult to read.

Actually, for one, I'm not centering my posts; I'm giving them indents. It makes them look neater and less all-over-the-place. I do it all the time when writing papers for school. xD But sure, no problem, I'll stop if it bothers you that much~ ^^

Speaking as a training barrister, I find your misuse of the Law erroneous.

1=Legal definitions do not always follow the definition of a word as it would be seen outside of the courtroom. Often courts misuse words to get what they see as a fair result. That is why the advocate for the other side is criticising the jurisprudence of this case.

2=That is not a supreme court case, that is a federal court case, thus I give it all the creditably of a magistrates court in the UK. Which is very little.

3=It was not saying Atheism is a religion; the article said that. The judge actually said it should have the same rights as a religion to start its own study group. Subtle points like this are very important in Law.

4=The supreme court said religion does not need to be based on god, no one here has disagreed with that argument, but that does not make Atheism a religion.

As I said, by the understanding of everyone, bar you, you are changing them. Why? Because:
1=To change something is to make it different to what it was previously.
2=To be different is to be 'not the same.'
3=Your definition is not the same as the previous definition of the word.
4=Thus your definition is different.
5=Therefore you have changed their meanings, or at least unsuccessfully tried to.

Yes, religion with the definition of "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods." is very generalizing definition, and is very different from the definition of religion: "Details of belief as taught or discussed." The second definition is the one I have been using, and the first definition is the one I have been explaining that my meaning is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

=As for your use of the words, "temporarily, obviously. Metaphorically, skeptically." Well, unfortunately, your usage of them makes no sense to anyone bar, presumably, yourself. Why? Because:
1= Temporarily changing something means you make it different for a short period of time. That means you have just said you are giving them new definitions for a short period of time, then changing them back. I am not sure how this proves your point.
2=Using words metaphorically is not changing, it means you are using their meaning a non-literal sense; however, this does not your help because that is not what you are doing. You are using your own, new, definitions of the words in a very literal sense.
3=To be skeptical is to be mildly disbelieving of something. Now your use of the word means you just stated that you are skeptical of your own theory. This is because currently the words position in the sentence means the only dominant clause it can be linked with is your own theory, thus you just said you are skeptical of your own theory. Now, may be you are, I do not know, your constantly changing of the English language makes you hard to follow, but I do think that is what you actually meant to do. Thus, the word here, I am sorry to inform you, is not being used correctly for your purposes.

Temporarily, meaning that in this situation at this time, right here in this thread topic, I'm not using the definition you're thinking that I am using, so for the duration of your reading this, please disregard, temporarily, the definition you thought was true for a different one, which, though is different, is also true.
Metaphorically, meaning that when I state that atheists believe that they are their own god, I obviously do not mean it literally. As stated before, the word "god" is being used metaphorically, not literally. Here, it represents an idol, or a role model that a person looks up to for moral support.
Skeptically, as in simply that I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone, nor just blatantly saying "Christianity is right and all atheistic beliefs are wrong!" Instead, I am saying, "Here is my opinion. It is a philosophy. Although I believe in it, I do not expect you to believe in it, and I understand that to you, it is only a philosophy. I expect that you are skeptical of it, so I proceed to explain my opinion further."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

1=Legal definitions do not always follow the definition of a word as it would be seen outside of the courtroom. Often courts misuse words to get what they see as a fair result. That is why the advocate for the other side is criticising the jurisprudence of this case.

Getting far off topic here. I used the word "religion" to describe atheism as well as Christianity and all other religions. Keeping it at that, my usage of the term, religion, should be enough to give it the definition I've been aiming for this entire time. If the word, religion, bugs everyone that much, then fine, I'll call it a worldview. Atheism, Christianity, and all other religions are worldviews.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

2=That is not a supreme court case, that is a federal court case, thus I give it all the creditably of a magistrates court in the UK. Which is very little.

3=It was not saying Atheism is a religion; the article said that. The judge actually said it should have the same rights as a religion to start its own study group. Subtle points like this are very important in Law.

I quote from the very article I referenced previously: "When the case was brought before the higher court, it was further considered, that although the prison officials did not deem atheism a religion, perhaps it should have been considered a religion because it was a group that was "religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being." The case, therefore, was finally judged by the State Supreme Court as not being in violation of free exercise because the atheist would still be able to practice his atheism whether or not he was allowed to form the group, however, his right to establishment of that group that was religious in nature was denied, and thus a violation of his First Amendment rights."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

4=The supreme court said religion does not need to be based on god, no one here has disagreed with that argument, but that does not make Atheism a religion.

How so? Do you have any reasons to back up your statement?
As I have said, my opinion is that as Atheism is a worldview, an opinion on the world, it is also a religion. A philosophy, here where philosophy has a very good definition of the word, religion.

First of all, what have I done to make myself a troll? The thread called for a discussion, and I contributed. If simply giving my opinion, which doesn't happen to agree with many of the atheistic opinions here, is trolling, then the thread starter should have said so in the first place that this thread was only for atheists to come and agree on their beliefs.

First of all, your account is new and you immediately jumped into an incredibly controversial topic. Second, your posts contain common fallacies which appear so frequently I can't help but assume they are intentional. And lastly, your post style is weird and draws attention to itself.

Quote:

Yes, yes it is. Atheism is Secular Humanism as Kangaroos are Macropus rufus's.

No. No it isn't. Your first tip that your source was not credible should be the page's unprofessional layout. However, the line about the atheist pledge should have tripped your bullshit alarm. There is no such pledge. You even said yourself that atheists think for themselves. Atheists are not a collective and the only thing we have in common is our lack of belief in god.

Quote:

You keep saying "is" and "is incorrect", while giving examples. Do you have any reason why or how or what makes the quote truth?

Here. A quick google search would clear up most of the confusion you seem to be experiencing. If you want to have a real discussion, you need to familiarize yourself with what we are actually talking about.

Quote:

Again, how are they not the same thing? Throwing out statements without some backup isn't defeating my argument. xD I defined them both, explained them, then explained them further to aid my argument.

Worldview
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.

Religion
a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Seriously, can you not use the internet? How hard would it be to look this up and get on the same page as everyone else?

Quote:

Atheism believes that either the world's beginning was an accident, or that the world has always existed.

Quote:

Atheism believes that we have no purpose other than personal pursuit of happiness.

Again, the wrong meaning of "belief" is being read here. I believe that if I sit in my chair, the chair will hold me. I have faith that sitting in the chair is what it is meant for. That does not mean I believe in a "Chair" religion, based on the fact that chairs do in fact work.

You are disputing religion, which in the context of religion, belief means following of religious code and God.

As soon as you go into talking about chairs, a thing which is there, and all senses can percieve it as real, you delve into particle physics and philosophy, the former explaining the chair as a means of atoms and force, the latter saying hwo incredible it is that it has a physical form despite there being massive gaps between each atom. I used the analogy of the condom because you used the term believe as a broad context. If you said "religion is a code of teachings and believe in a divine being that you believe in" then I may not have critisised. But you said it extremely vaguely to leave open the gap to believing in anything being a relgion.

Quote:

I never mentioned Communism, did I? Communism is all focused on the government and society as a whole. Although Marxism-Leninism and Secular Humanism have similar beliefs in that there is no such god, they are very different in their beliefs about ethical philosophy.

However, Communists are anti-religious. The way you phrased it, all Atheists are secular humanists, therefore communists cannot be Atheists, but they in fact generally are. This therefore renders your argument pointless. You didnt menion communism, and that was the exact problem.

Quote:

Exactly, the extent depends on your view of human nature, which is one of the factors that make your worldview. Now, the real discussion here on this very topic is where that truth is coming from. Why is it that killing innocent people is wrong? Could the same definitions be set if the world were different, and killing was as natural as breathing? These natural morals, instincts, and truths are coincidentally similar in many cases. Worldviews often collide over the existence or origin of these natural morals.

As I stated, many moral views come from society itself, but some ideas are universally held and have clear links into the means of survival. One such is not killing a member of your own tribal group, which extends to the whole of society. Killing is part of our nature, but as is society. Hell even the right wing which see humans as evil recognise we are dependant on each other and use nationalism to unite and control. The two statements I made have been seen in even the most isolated tribal cultures, which therefore stands to reason that that is part of our nature.

Quote:

The focus of the meaning is in why. Why does a person risk his life for another? Because he believes that it is the right thing to do. Why do people give money to help the poor? Because they believe it is the right thing to do. Focus on the subject pronoun in these sentences.

Are you sure you are a Christian? You sound more like a Nihilist. However even if they believe its the right thing to do, they are still putting someone else about their own needs, therefore making themselves less important over the needs of the other person. You can argue all you like that its to make them feel good, but if you give your life for someone else, then how will you feel good being dead? Just because you feel its the right thing to do does not make you place yourself higher than others.

Finally, for the law section, Ill let fared deal with it, Im not too familiar with law.

Overall, I would say you need to be more specific with your statements. You overstate some defintions and generalise other words, while talking about how words have different contexts. Specifiy your context, but do not redefine.

Ok, I am just going to respond quickly as I feel a meeting of minds and resolution to this debate is impossible. As such, these closing remarks will be my last, not because I wish to be imprudent or ignore anything else you have to say, but because I lack the time to respond to a debate which fundmentally has no way to go from here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShizukaMikudou

Yes, religion with the definition of "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods." is very generalizing definition, and is very different from the definition of religion: "Details of belief as taught or discussed." The second definition is the one I have been using, and the first definition is the one I have been explaining that my meaning is not.

In regards to the first definition, well I never suggested that is the definition of religion, and you seem to be claiming that have not made such a claim ether, so I am afraid that I cannot understand its relevance to our debate.

In regards to the second definition, well I have very little to say other than that I consider it to be as equally wrong as the first definition; however, if, as you have suggested, you did previously use this as your definition of religion, then ironically you have proven yourself wrong because:

1-Atheism is not a belief, it is lack of belief.

2-Atheism is not taught, it is just a lack of belief.

Quote:

Temporarily, meaning that in this situation at this time, right here in this thread topic, I'm not using the definition you're thinking that I am using, so for the duration of your reading this, please disregard, temporarily, the definition you thought was true for a different one, which, though is different, is also true.

Well, once again, what you said makes little to no sense, so forgive me if I am incorrect in my assumption here, but I must ask; are you basically saying that when I am talking to you, I should just forget the definition of words as they should be and accept whatever definitions you wish to give those words?

Yes, well, I am not sorry to say that I will not do this for you.

Quote:

Metaphorically, meaning that when I state that atheists believe that they are their own god, I obviously do not mean it literally. As stated before, the word "god" is being used metaphorically, not literally. Here, it represents an idol, or a role model that a person looks up to for moral support.

Well, the debate of whether you did say this, or just meant to, aside, I think it is worth noting that I do not consider myself an idol or role model, (nor for that matter do I think that is an apt description the word 'god' ether, but that again is another debate not worth having). You seem to be working under the misconception that people must always base their ideals on something higher than mankind, even if that something else happens to be themselves. This is very simplistic and discounts how complex some social constructs are, making it pseudo-intellectualism at best.

Quote:

Skeptically, as in simply that I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone, nor just blatantly saying "Christianity is right and all atheistic beliefs are wrong!" Instead, I am saying, "Here is my opinion. It is a philosophy. Although I believe in it, I do not expect you to believe in it, and I understand that to you, it is only a philosophy. I expect that you are skeptical of it, so I proceed to explain my opinion further."

That is not what being skeptical means, nor for that matter are your ideas, ones that would be defined philosophical. Your ideas would not even come under theology really; I guess, if they are anything academic (which I would assert, they are not) they would be deemed to be sociological theories. You are looking two socially constructed concepts and trying to (re-)define them.

Quote:

Getting far off topic here. I used the word "religion" to describe atheism as well as Christianity and all other religions. Keeping it at that, my usage of the term, religion, should be enough to give it the definition I've been aiming for this entire time. If the word, religion, bugs everyone that much, then fine, I'll call it a worldview. Atheism, Christianity, and all other religions are worldviews.

Atheism is not a worldview, it is a lack of a belief. A worldview is a set of beliefs about the world and its existence, but atheism lacks any defined set of beliefs because all it is, is a lack of belief. I do not even to think or believe anything to be an atheist, I just need to lack belief in god/gods.

The people here have no problem with the word religion, they are just confused as to why you feel the need to re-define several concepts just to prove that atheism is a religion.

I actually do not mind that you believe it is a religion, I think you are wrong, but I do not mind; the reason I have come this far with this conversation is because I am confused as to why you are so determined for it to be something it is not and I am trying to work out why. I used to go to a RC school and a lot of the pupils there wanted Atheism to be a religion because they felt that somehow demeaned it as a concept. I honestly do not believe that is your intent, so I am confused as to why you are so determined to change what Atheism is.

Atheism is not a belief, nor does it have any rules, ideals, rituals or anything else which a religious organisation requires to be a religion. It even lacks the most basic thing all religions, whether the religion has a god or not, require, aka faith. Atheists, by definition, have no faith. (That is different to them being faithless). So why are you so determined to make atheism a religion?

I quote from the very article I referenced previously: "When the case was brought before the higher court, it was further considered, that although the prison officials did not deem atheism a religion, perhaps it should have been considered a religion because it was a group that was "religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being." The case, therefore, was finally judged by the State Supreme Court as not being in violation of free exercise because the atheist would still be able to practice his atheism whether or not he was allowed to form the group, however, his right to establishment of that group that was religious in nature was denied, and thus a violation of his First Amendment rights."

Well, now you have moved the goalposts, but anyway. The judge there is wrong, but as that is quite a weak argument without me wasting hours expanding on it, so I will just waste an short space of my life to explain that basically the judge is clearly using what is known as the marge d’appréciation to get what he considers a fair result. Judges often like to change the meaning of the law to get a fair result, or at least what they consider fair. However, as often, as such as here, judges cannot do this, they instead change the meanings of other things for the purpose of getting the result they want. AKA, here, the judge cannot change Article 1 to apply to non-religious organisations, so he just changes what religious organisations are in regards to the meaning of article one. As I said, that would be a legal definition and does not apply outside of a court.

If legal definitions applied outside of a courtroom, then everyone who ever suffered a physical head-wound would be deemed insane, while someone who hears voices telling him to kill people is, according to legal dictatories at least, totally, sane.

Oh, and men, legally speaking, cannot be raped. :P So yes, legal definitions are rarely good ones to use outside of a courtroom.

It is also worth noting that while atheism is not a religion, we are not saying atheists cannot be religious. Most Buddhists are atheists. So by that account, these inmates were not making an atheist religion, nor did the judge, the inmates, who were atheists, were acting in a religious manner for the purposes of Article 1 because to be a part of their group/organisation you had to follow certain rules and practices that can be defined as a form of religious practice/organisation for purposes of Article 1. This means all the judgement actually says is that atheists can act in a religious manner and create religious organisations.

If we are to go further than that and say that their actions are not just the foundation of their own religious practice, but instead the foundations of an overall atheist religion, that then means that to be an atheist one must act according to their religious practices because that is what atheism has now become. This would mean, by definition, myself and millions of others instantly just stopped being atheists. As we are all still clearly atheists, clearly atheism is not defined by the rules and practices of those inmates, and as such their religion is not atheism, nor is atheism now defined by their religious code. Atheism itself is still what it always was, this judgement just means that now atheists, for the purposes of Article 1, can start religious organisations. (See what I mean about being able to make up bullshit legal definitions.)

Quote:

How so? Do you have any reasons to back up your statement?
As I have said, my opinion is that as Atheism is a worldview, an opinion on the world, it is also a religion. A philosophy, here where philosophy has a very good definition of the word, religion.

This I have already refuted, so I will end here by saying, you never answered my question, so I suspect you simply cannot understand why you are wrong.

a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

I only quote the dictionary because this is the system I believe when it comes to "religion". When someone "religiously" follows a set of idea's and belief's in their lives it then becomes sort of a religion for them.

Seeing as all religions stem from one person passing their "belief's" on to another or simply explaining their belief system it is safe to assume religion can also disclosed to one or a group.

I have always considered atheism as a religion by these definitions alone.

Location: The wind under my wings has carried me to where the sun sails and the moon walks

Blurb: Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy

Posts: 5,550

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ishikawa Oshro

I only quote the dictionary because this is the system I believe when it comes to "religion". When someone "religiously" follows a set of idea's and belief's in their lives it then becomes sort of a religion for them.

Seeing as all religions stem from one person passing their "belief's" on to another or simply explaining their belief system it is safe to assume religion can also disclosed to one or a group.

I have always considered atheism as a religion by these definitions alone.

Yes. Religion does not necessarily have to include worship. Both Buddhism and Daoism are considered religions because of their encompassing worldview, not their belief in any deity.

First of all, your account is new and you immediately jumped into an incredibly controversial topic. Second, your posts contain common fallacies which appear so frequently I can't help but assume they are intentional.And lastly, your post style is weird and draws attention to itself.

One, so what if my account is new? As far as I know, there aren't any rules about requirements for account experience and age in order to post. I find that rather rude that the age of my account should somehow label me a troll and render my due respect as a human being less than any other member here. Second, as I have said before, there are no rules against my being allowed to post here as long as I follow the rules. You can claim that my posts contain fallacies, and believe it too, but in the same way, I could easily say that you are just as wrong. Instead of just telling you so, though, I take on a mature approach by discussing it in a civilized manner. You can choose whatever you want to believe, or not. You can call it all lies. I believe in the same way that the atheistic beliefs are severely flawed and logically impossible. But in a proper debate, it actually matters less about what you believe and claim is true or not - what matters is if you can back up your claims with evidence, reasoning, and logic. Lastly, cursing, telling me that I don't know what we are talking about, and telling me that I don't know how to use the internet, are not helping your stance in this discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by killshot

No. No it isn't.

See original post for full quote.
My source was certainly more professional than a wikipedia page. How about this, then? Secular Humanism. In this very well researched article, Secular Humanists are indeed atheists. This article explains it very clearly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by killshot

Here. A quick google search would clear up most of the confusion you seem to be experiencing. If you want to have a real discussion, you need to familiarize yourself with what we are actually talking about.

I reference to the Secular Humanism article above, which explains and tells exactly what atheism is all about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by killshot

Worldview
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
Religion
a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
Seriously, can you not use the internet? How hard would it be to look this up and get on the same page as everyone else?

Please read my first paragraph. Yes I can use the internet, and yes, indeed, these definitions pop up if you were to google the definition. Did I say I agreed with these definitions? There are many definitions of the words, and I believe that the definition of religion here is very fallible, for it uses the word, religious, in its own definition. A religion isn't all about praying and believing in a god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by killshot

Please stop telling me what I believe.

I'm glad that we are on the same page about atheism, then. So you understand that I do indeed know what atheism is. Since you do not disagree, then unless you have anything else profound to say, then you have lost the debate arguing against the philosophy that everyone has a religion and worldview. Although it also technically means that the statement that Atheism is a religion has met no more arguments against it, I assume that isn't the case yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grimfang999

You are disputing religion, which in the context of religion, belief means following of religious code and God.
As soon as you go into talking about chairs...

See the original post for full quote.
You are correct in that the chair is related to particle physics, senses and philosophy, however the focus now is that you believe in those atoms and their purpose. But have you ever seen how the atoms do it? Scientists claim that the atoms are there and have those massive gaps, yet most of us have never truly seen these atoms and understood how they really work. You rely on faith alone, and trust in your judgement that what you see is real.

Although you originally read the term, belief, in a very broad context, it is not. If a religion is only a worldview in which you follow God, then the term should be discarded completely from this entire discussion. But that doesn't change my argument that Atheism is another subcategory amongst Christianity, Buddhism, Nihilism, and Communism. Many of these have similar philosophies - Atheists and Communists do not believe in God. Buddhists and Shintoists believe in many gods. Christianity and Judaism both believe in one God. But they are all philosophic beliefs about reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grimfang999

You stated this:
Atheism=No belief in God
Atheism=Secular humanist
Secular humanist=No belief in God
Secular humanist=individualistic
Meanwhile
Communism=Collectivist
Individualism opposes Collectivism
Communism=/=Secular humanist
Therefore
Communism=/=Atheist
However, Communists are anti-religious. The way you phrased it, all Atheists are secular humanists, therefore communists cannot be Atheists, but they in fact generally are. This therefore renders your argument pointless. You didnt menion communism, and that was the exact problem.

I know what Communism is, and although it has many similarities with Atheism including the non-belief in God, it has a very different philosophy, which is what you said right there - Communists are Collectivists, and Secular Humanists are individualists. Secular Humanists and Communists, also known as Marxists, are both atheists. I do not disagree with that. The atheists that everyone here are, as it appears, Secular Humanists. Yes, Marxists are also atheistic in that they do not believe in a god, however my explanation on Secular Humanists, which is a [i]religious[i] worldview, as stated in the Secular Humanists article link that I posted above, was to prove that atheism is a philosophy that has its own sets of beliefs, just like all the other religions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grimfang999

As I stated, many moral views come from society itself, but some ideas are universally held and have clear links into the means of survival...

See original post for full quote.
"Hell even on the right wing which see humans as evil..." I cannot make sense of this phrase. Are you saying "Hell", which is on a "wing", sees humans as evil?
Anyway, that still doesn't explain why our nature is to believe that stealing and killing is generally a moral injustice. Wild animals don't see it as unjust, yet we generally believe that the Holocaust was a terrible thing on behalf of the millions of Jews cruelly tortured and mass-murdered. As naturally social beings in nature, we learn from each others' mistakes, and especially as children, we pick up morals from each other. But again, this doesn't fully explain where the morality originates from. In terms of an atheistic philosophy that the world has no beginning, when did who or what in the first place decide the morals that we share today? The claim that morality is part of our nature contradicts with this. In terms of an atheistic philosophy that the world happened by accident, the link is broken, for there is no initial morality, as animals do not share the same beliefs on injustices that we do. The origin of morality has no base in either philosophy, and the existence of morality proves the existence of a moral law giver.
"Most people (Atheist or not) inherently know that systems that lead to such atrocities must be wrong, but Atheists cannot give a logical reason for why it is wrong." Quoted from this article, http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion
"A world governed purely by Atheistic, evolutionary ethics has been shown by history to be a horrible place to live. Most Atheists recognize this and choose to live by the ethical systems of other religions instead, or at the very least, live by the laws enforced by the government." Also quoted from that article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grimfang999

Are you sure you are a Christian?...

See original post for full quote
I guess I should make my sarcasm clearer. I am only explaining the points in the atheistic philosophy that prove that atheism is a philosophy. If you want me to tell you all about what I, as a Christian, believe, then fine, but the original subject was on atheism's status as a philosophy and religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

In regards to the first definition, well...

See original post for full quote.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. To better explain this: I may have already referenced this, but this gives the answer. Also stated in this article, the biggest reason that atheists try to claim that their philosophy is not a religion is to "allow them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so." Quoting from that very article. But due to this, public schools try to enforce many atheistic philosophies on the students, such as the flawed and failing theory of evolution. Atheism is "not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings." Quoted from the article link above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

Well, once again, what you said makes little to no sense...

See original post for full quote
Yes, I'm afraid you are incorrect in your assumption, but that only means it can't be helped that you are led to think that. I am not telling you to suddenly change definitions of words, like a made up language, but often times the given definition found on Google or even Webster is incorrect when used to claim that atheism is not a religion.

I quote from the article link posted in reply to your first argument in your last post: "Atheism will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.

Religion is a difficult thing to define. Various definitions have been proposed, many of which emphasize a belief in the supernatural.4 But such definitions break down on closer inspection for several reasons. They fail to deal with religions which worship non-supernatural things in their own right (for example Jainism, which holds that every living thing is sacred because it is alive, or the Mayans who worshiped the sun as a deity in and of itself rather than a deity associated with the sun)5; they fail to include religions such as Confucianism and Taoism which focus almost exclusively on how adherents should live, and the little they do say about supernatural issues such as the existence of an afterlife is very vague; they also don’t deal with religious movements centered around UFOs—which believe that aliens are highly (evolutionarily) advanced (but not supernatural) beings."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

You seem to be working under the misconception...

See original post for full quote.
Atheists generally believe that "humans are basically good." Quoted from the article, Atheist: A religion article. As I have said before, this is difficult to explain, because the words closest to the correct explanation often have other meanings attached to them. Instead, I will use examples to explain this. Although you may not consider yourself an idol or role model - and of course, you likely aren't some celebrity on American Idol or a famous philosopher whose words are almost always accepted by society - you trust in yourself, right? You trust that if you see a wall in front of you, there is indeed a wall in front of you, and your eyes do not lie to you. Almost every religion has its own definition of "god". Being an atheist, you (not you specifically; any atheist in general) choose not to believe in a god, because your definition of a god is "a supernatural figure that demands worship", and you view it in the same light as unicorns and magic. The difference between the atheistic definition, the Christian definition, and a very philosophic definition, such as the one I am trying to imply, needs to be understood before this argument can continue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

That is not what being skeptical means...

See original post for full quote.I am not the one being skeptical, but knowing that the subject is being approached very skeptically, I delve into philosophy and logic to further explain my beliefs. The definition of 'skeptical' is "relating to, characteristic of, or marked by skepticism." and the definition of 'skepticism' is "an attitude of doubt." Both definitions were taken from the Marriam-Webster dictionary. In the same way, the subject I have been explaining is viewed very skeptically.
And I agree that this debate is not really worth having, and it is getting far off topic; I don't see why you are so hung up about word definitions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

Atheism is not a worldview, it is ...

See original post for full quote.
I have already answered this, and given a source as well: http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion. Atheism is "not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion." Quoted from that article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

I actually do not mind that...

See original post for full quote.
I am not changing what it is. It is atheists who try to change what their religion is by calling it something else. I also wonder many questions like that: Why are you so determined to claim that atheism is not a religion? Why are some people so determined to make homosexuality natural? (And please do not start that debate here, anyone) The issue here is that you are trying to claim that atheism has no belief, faith, or worldview. If atheism has no rules, then nothing in the world is just or unjust, nothing in the world is true. I could go on, but you have just said atheism is basically the belief in nothing. And I mean absolutely nothing. Nothing philosophical, nothing moral, nothing at all. But you obviously have something you're trying to prove, here, or else you do not even have a reason to debate. If atheism were the lack of belief in any philosophy, then anyone claiming to be an "atheist" shouldn't believe in any truth whatsoever, and thus, they would get absolutely nowhere in life.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein
I'll even go on to say that a true atheist, with the definition you provided, has little more of a mind than a robot. I do not mean this, of course, but that is because I believe that atheists do indeed have their own set of beliefs, and without those beliefs, they have no reason for anything they do, and nothing they do is of their own will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

Well, now you have moved the ...

See original post for full quote.
Then why are you telling me that I'm changing a definition, when the legal definition isn't so reliable either? When I say that I give a better definition, "better" really does mean better. In other words, you could say that it is a more reliable definition, a truer definition than the "legal definition" which isn't so perfect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

It is also worth noting that while atheism is not a religion...

See original post for full quote.
Either an atheist Buddhist is following his/her own made-up religion, taking selected beliefs from both religions, or he/she is just a very confused person. Buddhism is not the belief in a lack of a god - it is the belief where "Buddha" is their "god" figure whose "teachings" are what the religion is based on. You cannot be truly both, for they obviously do not share the same philosophies on life.
The reason that the atheists were acting in a religious manner is that they were trying to enforce their beliefs, because they were trying to teach atheism. It also makes no sense that you are trying to claim that they weren't truly atheists, since they believe in the same philosophies as an atheist. The reason why atheists can even try to preach their beliefs at all is because atheism is something they believe. The constant argument here that atheism has no belief, is not a religion, and believes in nothing, yet believes in anything at all, is a huge contradiction of itself in the most severe lack of logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

This I have already refuted, so I will end here by saying, you never answered my question, so I suspect you simply cannot understand why you are wrong.
Thus why a meeting of minds between is impossible.

Okay, what question? You didn't ask a question. You just simply said once more that atheism isn't a religion, as you have been saying this entire time. By all philosophical evidence, logical reasoning, and facts, I have proved many, many times over just how atheism is a religion.

Anyway, thank you for your thoughts and contribution to this discussion. I had to shorten the quotes since this post was getting too big. xD

In my opinion, I also understand that the debate between Christianity and Atheism is one of biggest ones out there, yet I have seen that the atheistic struggle is losing, one of the biggest reasons being its many holes in logic and scientific evidence. God not so dead: Atheism in decline worldwide.
As a Christian, I also understand that the religion, Christianity, is the most targeted religion for attacks, because of the struggles of Satan himself.
But I am not afraid to stand up for my belief, if not at least to clear up the misinterpretation, and to explain what it really is. I go to a Christian school, and I have been taught Christian principles since I was a toddler, so I am very confident in my beliefs.
I also do not discourage a mature debate, because I believe that through inquisition comes knowledge, and by being challenged, and knowing the answer, my belief only gets stronger.
"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." -Albert Einstein
So basically, I think that it is good to debate about these things, because it leads people to gain more knowledge with which they can better judge the world and form their worldview.

In my opinion, I also understand that the debate between Christianity and Atheism is one of biggest ones out there, yet I have seen that the atheistic struggle is losing, one of the biggest reasons being its many holes in logic and scientific evidence. God not so dead: Atheism in decline worldwide.

You would be dead wrong in your assumptions. Any real scientist would know about the theory of dust and it's role in creationism and so forth. It is in fact a theory that just like the bible is missing one string to put it all together.
And atheism is certainly not on the decline. In fact more than ever it is an ever growing faction with more and more young adults leaning towards atheism for the sheer reason of homosexuality(and other rules they dislike) not being accepted in the biblical laws.

I myself do not know the dust theory 100% seeing as it was something I stumbled across a year or two back. But if you are interested in it I would gladly phone my colleague and to see if he had an article or knew a good youtube video about it.

You would be dead wrong in your assumptions. Any real scientist would know about the theory of dust and it's role in creationism and so forth. It is in fact a theory that just like the bible is missing one string to put it all together.
And atheism is certainly not on the decline. In fact more than ever it is an ever growing faction with more and more young adults leaning towards atheism for the sheer reason of homosexuality(and other rules they dislike) not being accepted in the biblical laws.

Most Popular World Religions. I'm not so sure about that. Do you have a source for this, that atheism is not on the decline? It is a fact that many strong atheistic philosophers and scientists have, through their own research and studies, converted from atheism due to the contradictions in the atheistic philosophy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ishikawa Oshro

I myself do not know the dust theory 100% seeing as it was something I stumbled across a year or two back. But if you are interested in it I would gladly phone my colleague and to see if he had an article or knew a good youtube video about it.

Most Popular World Religions. I'm not so sure about that. Do you have a source for this, that atheism is not on the decline? It is a fact that many strong atheistic philosophers and scientists have, through their own research and studies, converted from atheism due to the contradictions in the atheistic philosophy.

Sure~! That would be wonderful. c:

It is actually called the Nebular theory.
I won't go into detail seeing as I myself do not have enough information on the subject nor enough experience explaining the theory itself. But when explained to me it sounded legit and would most certainly please those humans needing a "scientific answer", though not 100% proven.

And I have attempted much researching on the rise/decline with numbers involved with atheism. And the general consensus from CNN and other news sites and such all generalize atheism on the rise with the sole reason of people becoming "smarter". The only problem is that you cannot really get a good read on exactly how many atheist there actually are seeing as they tend to not gather like practitioners of a religion.

But I'm off subject. So ill be taking my leave but do plan to lurk.
Of you'd like to continue this feel free to message me.

Those affiliated with the Christian religion remained the largest group; 59 per cent (33.2 million) of usual residents in England and Wales.

This is a decrease of 13 percentage points since 2001 when 72 per cent (37.3 million) of usual residents stated their religion as Christian. It is the only group to have experienced a decrease in numbers between 2001 and 2011 despite population growth.

The second largest response category in 2011 was no religion. This increased 10 percentage points from 15 per cent (7.7 million) of usual residents in 2001, to 25 per cent (14.1 million) in 2011.

Plus, as someone who has lived in a Buddhist country and studied alongside Buddhists, I just have to faceplam at this:

Quote:

Buddhists and Shintoists believe in many gods.

Ish: Please tell me your dust point was a purposeful nod towards a certain teenage fiction book, as if it is, your trolling just went over 9000 on the awesome scale.

Kudos: No-one has denied that atheists can be religious, in fact most have stated quite the opposite and the fact they can only further strengthens the point that atheism is not a religion, itself. To be an atheism does not require active belief or practice of any kind, just a lack of a belief in one thing, a deity, this why atheists can believe a whole host of things and only linked by one small lack of belief in a certain thing. I mean if a lack of belief in something is all it takes to be a religion now, then surely that means that everyone who does not believe in unions or magic is now part of a religion??? Religion is about positive action and belief in a certain set of things, while atheism is negative action (no action) in regards to one thing. There are small villages in East Asia where the idea of god does not exist, so these villages are atheist by definition, does that mean their simple lack of knowledge of even the idea of god makes them part of a religion they are probably equally unaware of? That is just a baize way of looking at things.

Those obsessed with making atheism a religion, whether they are religious or otherwise, seem to completely miss the point of religion and are just distorting what atheism means.
The main things religions need:
1=Common practices-There is no problem practice among atheists, I do not need to act in a religion way to be an atheist.

2=Scared or holy-There are objects whatsoever linked to atheism.

3=Rules and commonally held principles-There are no rules or principles related to atheism.

4=Belief in the spiritual-(Note, spiritual and deity are different) Atheists do not have to believe anything to be an atheist, they just need to lack belief in deity.

5=Set of common cultural ideals and values=atheism has no culture, idealogy or values.

6=Unity=there is no unity or organisation that is by definition atheist, there are movements made up of atheists, but these are pressure groups made up to promote atheism at most, and as such, they seem to be more social pressure groups. To call them the foundations of a religion would make organisations like Greenpeace a religion.

7=Faint=Atheism is founded on a lack of faint, if anything.

I could go on, but I think the point is there, religion is a quite defined cultural construct, atheism is just a state of being.

As for worldviews, well I think calling atheism a worldview overstates atheism by some degree unless you define your whole existence by 1 single concept, which seems simplistic to me. I also think calling religion a worldview rather understates religion, of course, if religious groups what to just give up being organised intuitions and social groups, and become just set of commonly held beliefs with no real affirmative actions, then I wholly support their just giving up on being a religion. ;)

And I have attempted much researching on the rise/decline with numbers involved with atheism. And the general consensus from CNN and other news sites and such all generalize atheism on the rise with the sole reason of people becoming "smarter". The only problem is that you cannot really get a good read on exactly how many atheist there actually are seeing as they tend to not gather like practitioners of a religion.

Hmm. I honestly don't look to the media as a source of true information, as it is well known that the media is the king of brainwashing. Not to say that everything the media says is wrong, but I'm sure everyone knows how the media is often and well used to take advantage of the masses.
Anyway, I have also looked it up and researched it, and many of the most authentic sites admit that the decline of atheists has been due to research proving many atheistic theories wrong, such as evolution, the breaking of the law of cause and effect, and the evidence that proves the impossibility of there being no intelligent design.

“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”

“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

- Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy) Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.

“As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.”

- Professor Freeman J. of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton

“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”

These are only a few quotes from very authentic and prestigious scientists and philosophers - through researching, I found many, many more, actually, but I hope I shouldn't need them all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

Plus, as someone who has lived in a Buddhist country and studied alongside Buddhists, I just have to faceplam at this:

Polytheism - the belief in many gods. The gods of most polytheists are far different than the God of Christianity, Catholicism, Methodism, ect., where gods can be anything from a minor spirit to an evil antagonist of the main god to the highest and most powerful god. But they are all still widely known as "gods".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

Those obsessed with making atheism a religion, whether they are religious or otherwise, seem to completely miss the point of religion and are just distorting what atheism means.
The main things religions need:
1=Common practices-There is no problem practice among atheists, I do not need to act in a religion way to be an atheist.
2=Scared or holy-There are objects whatsoever linked to atheism.
3=Rules and commonally held principles-There are no rules or principles related to atheism.
4=Belief in the spiritual-(Note, spiritual and deity are different) Atheists do not have to believe anything to be an atheist, they just need to lack belief in deity.
5=Set of common cultural ideals and values=atheism has no culture, idealogy or values.
6=Unity=there is no unity or organisation that is by definition atheist, there are movements made up of atheists, but these are pressure groups made up to promote atheism at most, and as such, they seem to be more social pressure groups. To call them the foundations of a religion would make organisations like Greenpeace a religion.
7=Faint=Atheism is founded on a lack of faint, if anything.
I could go on, but I think the point is there, religion is a quite defined cultural construct, atheism is just a state of being.

It is just the opposite of that, that you think everyone is obsessed with proving atheism a religion. Proving that atheism is on the same category level as all other official religions is one of the least of my concerns, especially since there should be no worth while reason for people to want to deny that atheism is a religion. If atheism is what you have said it is, then it is the those who wish to make it a non-religion who are distorting their very own belief. If you are not distorting your belief, and would like to think that "atheism" really is a non-religion, then you can only be the most extreme form of agnostic to actually believe in no philosophy whatsoever. That should mean no belief in evolution, individualism, freedom, justice, morality, absolutely nothing. As Albert Einstein has said - "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." You cannot have reality or even an opinion without the existence of religion.
1=What do atheists do that nobody else does? Religious practices aren't just a strange ritual with magic circles - they are anything in life that you do which is affected by your worldview. Most Christians do not commit suicide because they believe it is murder. Most Christians strive to be kind, forgiving, and loving, even toward their enemies. I won't explain all the practices of all the other religions, but religion isn't all about the praying and worshiping - it's about innate moral values, which are directly connected to one's religion and worldview.
2=While some religions have objects that mean more than their physical form to the people following that religion, and others simply represent a symbol, once more: it is not about the practices, objects, or symbols. It's about the belief, which is a part of one's worldview, which is the foundation for that person's philosophy and opinion on reality itself.
3=That is a self-destructing statement. You can never say, "There are no rules" or "There is no truth" or "There are no principles" for each one of those statements contradicts itself. If there are no rules, then there is no order, and there is no law. If there is no truth, then nothing ever said can be true, including the statement itself. If there are no principles, then why don't we all just start stealing money from each other and killing each other to get what we want? Who ever said it was wrong to do that? Benjamin Franklin? What does he know, if there are no principles? That is an extreme example, but not far from the truth of a world of pure atheism.
4=Atheists believe in the lack of a deity. Everyone here has said that countless times, and thus has proven in atheism's status as being on the same category as all the other religions. Atheists only believe in the physical world and that they can see and touch, yet they believe truth is relative. I could write endless lists of contradictions in atheistic philosophy.
5=Again, as I have said before. You can't not believe in anything, and the closest thing that comes to the practice of choosing not to accept any philosophy whatsoever is agnosticism. But even so, agnostics are either ignorant or blind until they inquire for themselves in order to construct their own worldview. Even a newborn baby has its worldview, a selfish worldview in which it wants food and shelter in order for it to survive.
More contradictions: "Atheism has no culture" Then are you all robots? No, even robots have a culture - repetitive and programmed actions. Living your daily life requires a culture, and culture at all, or else the only way to have no culture is to be dead.
Culture - The arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
"Atheism has no ideology" What a progressive group atheists are, just existing without ideology. You're either an atheist with your own worldview, moral values, ect., or in the least you'd be a true agnostic, believing in nothing, and contributing absolutely nothing to society. If you have no ideas or ideals, then why are you even debating?
Ideology - A system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political policy
"Atheism has no values"
Values - The regard that something is held to deserve; the importance or preciousness of something: "your support is of great value".
I know nobody in history or in real life who has no values. The only people who have ever said such a thing as that they have no values that I've ever heard of are the ones in mental distress. Do you not value your life, your family, your friends, your well-being, anything? If it were true that atheists hold no values, then either all atheists are actually not atheists, very confused, or a group of people that no one should trust.
6="Atheism has no unity" Well atheists, for the most part, believe in the same philosophies, and think their beliefs to be the truth.
Unity - Harmony or agreement between people or groups.
For the most part, atheists agree with each other's philosophies, as those philosophies are shared by themselves. Seriously, imagine atheism without unity. Does that mean every atheist is alone in his or her beliefs? Yet atheists all call themselves atheists, and claim that they believe in atheism. In the very least, if their beliefs really were so independent, they shouldn't claim atheism as their worldview at all.
7=Now you're talking about a whole new sub-genre in your philosophy. Are you telling me about a philosophy that everything is just in our minds? That philosophy is not unheard of, but it doesn't sound like what you've been saying. That theory is an entire philosophy on its own terms.
The other possibility is that you're using some other definition of faint, and every definition that I've looked up makes absolutely no sense in your sentence.
The only noun definition, however, of faint, is a sudden loss of consciousness, which also makes no sense at all xD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

As for worldviews, well I think calling atheism a worldview overstates atheism by some degree unless you define your whole existence by 1 single concept, which seems simplistic to me. I also think calling religion a worldview rather understates religion, of course, if religious groups what to just give being organised intuitions and social groups, and become just set of commonly held beliefs with no real affirmative actions, then I wholly support their just giving view on the modern religion. ;)

Can we all agree that the terms worldview and religion are difficult to define correctly in this situation?
There are many minor groups that have their own personal set of beliefs unique to themselves, but not always unique. With the way you've been defining religion, you could call Democracy and Republicanism religions. You could call the Ku Klux Klan a religious organization. Some people have even thought Nazi's to have their own religion. But the major religions that we know today are certainly different than democracy or "beiber fever". For example, Christianity itself has many subcategories, including Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Protestant, ect., which each have their own different interpretations of the Bible and the Christian belief, however all of them believe in one singular defining belief - that Jesus Christ is our Savior. I, myself, don't consider myself any of the subcategories - only Christian. That doesn't make me an agnostic Christian, for I have my firm beliefs and my own worldview. The defining singular belief that identifies Atheists is the belief in no god. Even Judaism has long since separated from Christianity in that the Jews do not believe in the New Testament or Jesus Christ, disregarding the most important tenet of the Christian faith. While religion is used to label major worldviews like Christianity, it is also used to label subcategories like Communism, which is also Atheist. This is why the terms worldview, religion, cults and beliefs sometimes have their definitions blurred. I hope that with this in mind, we can overcome the confusion when using these words. ^^

Last edited by ShizukaMikudou; 03-16-2013 at 12:38 AM.
Reason: Spellcheck.

That article says that atheism in America has risen over a very long period of time, but there are hundreds of articles, surveys, and videos that say that Atheism is on the decline c:

Studies and surveys have shown that the biggest reasons for atheism's decline world wide is due to science revealing the impossibilities and fallacies of the atheistic beliefs.

“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system. I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."
–Sir Isaac Newton

As the article, Science, ‘frauds’ trigger a decline in atheism says, atheism has been "losing its scientific underpinnings." Also quoting the article, "The Rev. Paul M. Zulehner, dean of Vienna University’s divinity school and one of the world’s most distinguished sociologists of religion, said atheists in Europe have become “an infinitesimally small group.”"

The most prestigious scientists have turned their backs on atheism, saying that atheism is scientifically impossible.

The article, New Atheists in decline says about most of the new atheists causing the rise in America, "From the start, the tone of these anti-religious polemics suggested weakness rather than strength. New Atheism is best understood as a response to the persistence of faith, not its decline." and "In the 1970s and '80s, many atheists assumed that the intellectual case against theism had been won decisively. They assumed that the wider culture would soon catch up, and religion be relegated to a purely private domain for a dwindling minority of followers.
The reality has been very different. Since 1990, the profile of faith in public life has grown, not diminished."

The article, ATHEISM IN DECLINE", says that although the media gets overly excited and rashly posts articles with headlines like "Religion is in decline", however, from a global perspective, the stats are quite different, "The year just ended saw a rash of news articles predicting religion’s extinction. Headlines declared “Researchers predict the End of Religion” (Forbes), “Physics predicts end of religion” (BBC) and “Canadians losing faith as religion faces extinction” (Montreal Gazette). Glancing at these banners it’s easy to get the impression that atheism (the belief there is no God) and agnosticism (those who “don’t know” if there is a God) are growing by leaps and bounds. It might also seem that the belief in God—a central tenet of the Christian faith—is in terminal decline, heading towards inevitable extinction. However, from a global perspective, nothing could be further from the truth. Globally atheism & agnosticism are in decline; the Christian faith is vibrant & growing at a healthy rate."

There are hundreds of thousands of references, and plenty of things to research, and I have read from Christian, Atheistic, New Age, and Marxist-Lenenist articles everywhere, and am absolutely confident in my Christian beliefs. You can do all the research you can, and I encourage research in the subjects you want to know about, too. Research, studying, and inquiring can only help. ^^ Although I'd say that within the last two posts, the topic of this thread has shifted, it also may seem that the original topic has faded, and in my opinion, untill someone else would like to speak up, I have refuted every single argument completely, and this debate is over. xD Thanks to everyone for their participation~!

Last edited by ShizukaMikudou; 03-17-2013 at 02:33 PM.
Reason: Spellcheck.

Ok, when the most credible source you can put forward is the Washington Times, a newspaper, which at the time of that article was owned by the founder of the Unification Church, Sun Myung Moon, your evidence is somewhat in trouble.

Yu-Gi-Oh is the property of Konami and Kazuki Takahashi. We are only a parody, we are not breaking any laws nor intend to. See our disclaimer and terms of use. You can also contact us. Maybe you even want to read our about us page. Smileys by David Lanham. Hosted by Cthulhu.... Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn